Category: Arts & Culture

QUID EST VERITAS?

2 Comments

According to the Gospel of John, after Jesus’ arrest he was eventually brought before the Roman governor of Judea, Pontius Pilate, to be questioned (John 18:38). During their brief dialogue, Pilate utters the famous phrase, “Quid est Veritas?’, or “What is truth?”. Scholars often refer to this retort as “jesting Pilate”, as he seems to be mocking Jesus’ claim to be, or at least to know, Truth. While Pilate is but a bit player in the Biblical drama that eventually unfolds, I submit to you that we are all living in Pilate’s world now. His rejection of the existence of objective truth has become, sadly, the dominant philosophical dogma in our times and the consequences of that paradigm shift have been disastrous to say the least.

WE ALL HAVE A DOGMA IN THIS FIGHT

Speaking of dogma, it is important that I first address a particularly annoying mischaracterization of dogma because it actually helps one to understand why we have fallen into the cynical worldview presaged by Pilate two millennia ago. Non-religious types love to dismiss as mere dogma the basing of one’s belief in objective truth upon one’s religious faith. Despite the negative connotation secular moderns have tried to give it, dogma simply means the ideas or notions laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true. As Hannibal Lecter so memorably said, “First principles, Clarice.” It is from these principles, or dogma, that we begin to construct our view of the world, what we sometimes like to call reality. We all have dogmas, whether or not we believe in Jesus or Buddha or Sam, the neighbor’s dog. Secular people like to imagine they are free of dogma because they erroneously equate dogma with only the faith tenets of a particular religion. Transubstantiation is Catholic dogma. Yet, so is the principle of objective Truth. In fact, that principle undergirds the entire edifice of the Judeo-Christian, or Western, if you prefer, philosophical worldview. When secular thinkers dismiss as mere religious dogma the existence of an objective source of truth, they imperil the logical foundation for the existence of objective truth itself.

HOUSTON, WE HAVE A PROBLEM

So, how does one defend the reality of objective Truth while simultaneously rejecting the necessity of an objective source of that Truth? Those wise enough to understand this dilemma try to claim Reason itself, or more often “SCIENCE” (as they prefer to write it, as if the ALL CAPS imbues the word with some kind of authority) as their source of objective Truth. Yet, in claiming this, the “SCIENCE” folks make what any first year philosophy student would recognize as a category error. Reason, and the subsequent science it produces, is simply a tool by which one attempts to ascertain objective Truth. It is not the Truth. Think of it this way: When Einstein completely upended the Newtonian understanding of physics with his Relativity equations, did the Truth about the ways the physical world operates suddenly change? Of course not. What changed was our understanding of that Truth. One man’s incredible ability to use his reason allowed all of us to gain a more complete picture of that Truth. Or, to use a more quotidian example, when we first meet another person we may learn some basic things about them, such as their name and where they are from. But do those pieces of truth constitute the Truth about that person? Obviously not. That Truth exists outside of ourselves. We may use our reason and intellect to improve our understanding of that person, but the Truth that is that person does not exist merely as a function or result of the application of our reason. Religious and secular alike use reason as a tool to help them to ascertain Truth, but reason and/or science is not a synonym for objective Truth.

IDEAS HAVE CONSEQUENCES

Dogma, category errors…what’s with all this philosophy stuff? Well, sorry, but ideas have consequences. All those philosophy classes you blew off in college actually have some real world relevance. Who knew? The irony of the post Judeo-Christian world is that those folks who spent the past 400 years working so devoutly, if I may, to tear down the edifice of the Judeo Christian philosophical worldview were simply allowing their anti-religious bias to undermine the solid philosophical foundation upon which they were standing. They succeeded in pulling the rug out from under themselves. As such, despite their attempts to erect the God of Science as a stand in for the God of Abraham, it was inevitable that once that solid foundation was finally destroyed, we would find ourselves like little children, struggling to find truth in a world with nothing to cling to save the whimsy of our passing fancies or our often misguided and unreliable emotions.

GRADUALLY, THEN SUDDENLY

In Ernest Hemingway’s novel The Sun Also Rises, a character named Mike is asked how he went bankrupt. He replies, “Two ways. Gradually, then suddenly.” The story of how our Judeo Christian worldview went bankrupt, a world wherein feelings matter more than facts, and the quest for truth has been replaced by the desire to promote one’s personal narrative, can be described in much the same way.

First, sin was watered down into sickness, which struck a blow against the commonly held philosophical precept in Judeo Christian thought of personal responsibility. No longer was it acceptable to judge someone’s actions against an external standard, particularly not some dogmatic religious standard. Even people of faith, or maybe particularly people of faith, wary of being accused of being some kind of Puritan zealot, were taken in by this objection. Soon all sorts of objectively bad behavior was being excused lest we commit the only sin deemed worthy of condemnation, that of being judgmental. Sure, it was still frowned upon to murder, rape, steal, and lie, but assigning blame to the individual for these actions became unacceptable. After all, it wasn’t really the perpetrator’s fault. Their abusive parents, or the fact they grew up in a poor neighborhood, or even their poor diet, made them ultimately not responsible for their bad actions. Without a standard outside of ourselves, it becomes impossible to effectively refute the logic of the popular refrain, “who are we to judge?” Indeed. A philosophical worldview based on individual “truth” cannot honestly lay claim to any universal truths.

Then words morphed into weapons. We ditched the truly healthy and empowering refrain, “Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me” in favor of the idea that somehow the words we utter are akin to the magical incantations of the mythological witches of old, inflicting pain and suffering on those at whom they are directed. It didn’t start out that way of course. Once again, appealing to people’s sense of fairness and decency, we were told that, although we cherish free speech and expression in our culture, we should try to be more sensitive. It was better, in the interest of protecting other’s feelings, that we not be as truthful as we could be with our words. I will never be one to argue with the notion that a civil society works better when people behave civilly towards each other and observe such old fashioned notions as politeness. However, while well intentioned, the fact is that once the truth becomes something to consciously avoid, it isn’t long before the truth becomes something to condemn. We may have started with creating silly euphemisms, such as calling garbage collectors “sanitation engineers”, and encouraging more inclusive terms, such as chairperson, but now we are told that simply uttering certain words is equivalent to attacking someone with a knife.

Finally, feelings trumped facts. We jettisoned the old standard of first telling the truth, and then providing our opinion, in favor of privileging our feelings above all other considerations, even facts and evidence that may be contrary to those feelings. Again, it started more innocently. We were told to express our feelings more freely. We were told it was healthy to explore our feelings and share them more openly. Then, however, it turned into the idea that we must protect those feelings from being hurt or challenged. We needed safe spaces and we couldn’t be exposed to anything that might “trigger” us. Finally we were told if someone felt we were responsible for hurting their feelings, never mind any other considerations such as facts or evidence, then we should be punished for that. I suppose one might argue we really haven’t abandoned our old notions of crime and punishment. Its just that instead of living in a society based on notions such as the rule of law, derived from objective ideals, we now live in a society wherein our “newspaper of record” can unironically print words such as these:

“The story highlights the tensions between a student’s deeply felt sense of personal truth and facts that are at odds with it.”

Michael Powell, New York Times

THROUGH THE LOOKING GLASS

Thus we have arrived at a place in history where the quest for objective Truth, once seen as mankind’s ultimate purpose, has been abandoned. We instead find people on a relentless, albeit tragic, quest to protect and promote their personally defined truth, their narrative, against any and all enemies, no matter the cost to themselves or society. No person or part of society is immune. From history to politics to law to science, it is the narrative that must be maintained above all else. Even the seemingly most obvious, ineluctable, indisputable facts are simply ignored if they don’t serve the narrative. Can there be any more obvious example than the current transgender rights movement? It is the subjective worldview taken to its logical and disastrous extreme. When a biological male, who proclaims he feels like he is truly a female, is not only allowed to compete against biological women, but is encouraged and supported to do so by the very institutions supposedly responsible for seeking the truth, we have truly gone through the looking glass as a society.

Yes, we all live in Pilate’s world now. For like the cynical Roman governor, we have as a society dismissed the Truth as unknowable, even when it is staring us in the face. Like Pilate, our society has washed its hands of the whole thing, and we are reaping the consequences of that terrible decision every day.

AMERICAN ANTHEM

1 Comment

You may be surprised to read this, but in 2016 when NFL player Colin Kaepernick began kneeling during the playing of the national anthem prior to the game, it did not bother me. But very quickly, it had ruffled enough feathers to become a genuine kerfuffle.

Frankly, I couldn’t get all that exercised about it. It seemed to me that he had every right to do it. Even as a Veteran…no, especially as a Vet…I always believed those kind of protests were precisely the sorts of freedoms I had been serving to safeguard. Our free speech protections don’t exist to protect speech we like or agree with. They exist precisely for the opposite reason: to protect speech we don’t agree with and don’t like. This is the crucial point many on the political left, who are so fond of speech codes, miss. I think, in this instance, Kaepernick picked an issue wherein the political right was vulnerable to being suckered into a silly, counterproductive fight, and they were forced to defend an ultimately un-American position. I think if we all had just ignored him, like any sensible adult does when a child throws a temper tantrum, it would have blown over quickly.

Now, if you’ve read any of this blog before, you will certainly know that I in no way endorse Kaepernick’s worldview. I believe the reasons Kaepernick provided to justify his actions revealed him to be a shallow thinker who possesses a dubious moral compass and suffers from a severe gratitude deficit. But that’s just my opinion. He has a right to his. And, in this circumstance*, he most definitely has a right to kneel during the anthem. Additionally, despite my disagreements with his assessment of America, I must give Kaepernick credit where credit is due. Many may not have realized that Kaepernick began his protests by sitting on the bench during the anthem. However, after receiving a thoughtful letter from a U.S. Army veteran, and NFL player, who encouraged Kaepernick in a private meeting to respectfully kneel instead of casually sit during the anthem, as a compromise and a show of respect for veterans, Kaepernick listened and began to kneel instead.

(*If he were representing the United States in any athletic competition, then I would say the governing body, such as the USOC, would be justified in dismissing any athlete who engaged in such behavior. I think it is cowardly and shameful that the USOC allows the women’s national soccer team to kneel during the anthem. Representing your country is a privilege that comes with certain expectations, one of them being to represent your country with pride. If an individual cannot do that then they can go kneel at home or play for some other country they like better. The USOC should have the courage to dismiss those players, even if they are the best players. If we lose, we lose.)

When it comes to the First Amendment, I’m with former Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. Hailed, and rightly so, as a model conservative jurist, Scalia demonstrated the proper conception of our First Amendment when he sided with the majority in Texas v Johnson, the 1989 case in which the Court struck down as unconstitutional a Texas law that prohibited the burning of the American flag.

A MODEST PROPOSAL

All of this may seem like old news, but it has been brought back to my mind in light of the NFL’s decision to play two anthems before each game. No, not because there are suddenly Canadian teams in the league, like there are in the NHL. That league is right to honor the home country of each franchise in cases where a Canadian based team plays and American based one. Besides, “Oh, Canada!” is a rousing tune if you ask me.

In a deeply cynical manuever, reflective of the NFL’s craven approach to most of these issues, the NFL has decided to side with the destructive voices determined to further divide us into warring grievance camps. They recently announced they are going to have two songs performed before each game. The Star Spangled Banner and a separate national anthem for black Americans.

I’m not going to get into the tired arguments about Francis Scott Key (it seems he was by all accounts racist in his thinking about blacks) or the supposed racist parts of the third verse (the word slave is mentioned, but a competent reading of the verse in light of the history of the War of 1812 reveals Key is referring to persons in the British Army who had been conscripted, not African American slaves).

I would like, instead, to offer a compromise. Let’s not refer to either song as our National Anthem.

Let’s face it, The Star Spangled Banner is a mess of a song, lyrically and musically. Ask many a professional singer, and they will say it is terribly difficult to sing, requiring a tremendous vocal range to sing it well. There are only so many Whitney Houston’s to go around, and those talents can’t be there to sing it all the time. Why should we subject ourselves to this, the much more common result when folks try to sing it? And those lyrics? Have you listened to them? One interrupted phrase after another, never quite getting around to the point (I know what you’re thinking…I’m not that bad, am I?). The only inspiring part is the last line.

Lift E’vry Voice and Sing is referred to as the Black national anthem. As fine as the sentiments that are expressed in that song are, chronicling blacks struggles during slavery and Jim Crow, it is consciously promoted as a song for black Americans alone. Do we really need to further emphasize our differences and points of friction in our NATIONAL anthem?

In light of the fact that neither of these choices are satisfying, I hereby offer the following modest proposal:

We should adopt “America the Beautiful” as our National Anthem. The song is much easier to sing and the lyrics speak movingly and directly about beauty, faith, and brotherhood; all things we could use much more of these days.

One more thing. While not always practically possible to have performed, the U.S. government approved official rendition of the song must be Ray Charles’ 1972 recording. If your emotions are not stirred and chills do not run down your body when you hear this soulful, lovingly rendered tribute to America, then I’m not sure anything could.

IT’S A MAD, MAD, MAD, MAD WORLD

Leave a comment

I cannot recount to you how many times over the past year or so I have thought to myself, “That’s just crazy.” Ever since the tragic death of George Floyd, it seems we have been inundated with a tsunami of stories purporting to expose the structural racism and white privilege endemic to the United States. The accusations stretch far and wide. They of course rain down almost daily upon your average white male heterosexual, a.k.a guilty, citizen. But these torrents are powerful enough to have burst through the heretofore unassailable defenses of even people such as Tom Hanks, the widely respected actor whose universal popularity and conventional liberal politics everyone assumed would have sheltered him from this storm. However, as even Mr. Hanks found out, this madness is widespread, and we are all drowning in it. As the great Brook Benton sang, “Feels like it’s raining all over the world.”

There was one story I read that particularly stood out, however. The facts of the incident are not especially notable as these things go today. It was the following sentence, however, that struck me like a thunderbolt from the heavens:

The story highlights the tensions between a student’s deeply felt sense of personal truth and facts that are at odds with it.

Michael Powell, New York Times, February 24, 2021

I began to wonder. Who is the most convinced of the absolute truth of their vision of the world, no matter the facts that are odds with it? Is it the preacher, the politician, the common man? No, it is none of them. It is the madman. The doubts of even a Mother Teresa have been well documented, but the certainty of Jim Jones was deadly. FDR tried one thing, and if didn’t work he’d try another. Hitler could not be swayed from his deeply felt sense of personal truth, to the tune of millions of deaths. The average man might jokingly speculate that he would do a better job than those in charge and therefore dream about being a king for a day. The lunatic has allowed his speculations, devoid of a sense of humor and a proper humility, to harden into the unassailable certainty that he really is the King of England in disguise.

THE CLEAN, WELL LIT PRISON OF ONE IDEA

In his masterwork, Orthodoxy, Chesterton entitles his second chapter “The Maniac”. In it he describes the commonalities materialist philosophers and academics in his time shared with the inhabitants of Hanwell, a London mental hospital. Rereading this chapter recently I finally understood why the word ‘crazy ‘ kept jumping into my head every time I heard one of those racism stories. It was because the stories were so marinated in the insanity known as Critical Race Theory (CRT). CRT is an academic theory, and its proponents and adherents are for the most part academics, which is to say rationalists. As an explanation for the world, CRT suffers from the same shortcoming as the materialists’ worldview did over a century ago: Their reasoning leads to madness.

I may shock the reader by admitting there is truth in some of what CRT argues. There is truth in it, in the same way it is true that the Earth and a golf ball are both spheres. But what a great amount of truth there is left out! Just like the lunatic, who papers his wall with photos and news clippings, all connected by push pins and string, CRT purports to explain a large many things. But whatever truths it might touch upon, it doesn’t explain them in a large way. Their logic may be as complete and symmetrical as a circle, but it is not a very large circle. It has only room enough for one idea, repeated over and over. One might ask of the CRT enthusiast, are there no other stories in the world except yours? Is there no other drama happening but the one starring you?

Quite simply, as Chesterton famously described it, the maniac is trapped “in the clean, well lit prison of one idea.” And unfortunately for us, that one idea…that one mad, mad idea…has leaked out of the asylum and, much like the Corona virus, infected the world. The young woman in the story linked to above is only capable of seeing the world through one lens. She, and the other adherents of CRT, have taken one idea and crammed the entire world into it. It is the mark of true madness: a logical completeness married to a spiritual contraction. Cynical nihilism coupled with boundless self regard. As Chesterton notes, how much larger your world would be if your self could become smaller in it.

The madman is not the man who has lost his reason. The madman is the man who has lost everything except his reason.

G.K. Chesterton

If we choose to continue to instantiate the limited vision of world defined by CRT, we will be choosing the path to madness. CRT, being a product of the academy, necessarily suffers from its flaws: the fatal combination of an expansive and exhaustive reason coupled with an almost complete absence of common sense. CRT is like the person who only can see the zebra as having a white coat with black stripes and is wholly incapable of summoning the imagination to see the zebra as black coated with white stripes.

THE NIGHTMARE…OR THE DREAM?

Did you ever notice that whenever someone describes a “nightmare”, their description invariably involves some variation of the same theme: endlessly falling into a dark oblivion, or repeatedly being chased by some monster, human or otherwise, or being compelled to face some other deep seated fear. In their vision they nearly always describe the experience as one of being stuck in some perverse twilight zone of fear and anxiety, where they are doomed to endlessly relive their terror, as if on a merry-go-round from Hell. It is interesting to note that insanity has been described, as much as it can be, in very similar terms. The lunatic is simply one who is experiencing the type of nightmare from which one never wakes up.

When, however, one recounts what they describe as a “dream”, the story is quite different. It often involves magical creatures who lead one on exciting if somewhat unintelligible adventures. Or often the drama is populated by old friends, or lost loved ones, and one has the chance to reenact happy moments and to make new ones. The entire tone and tenor of the experience speaks to a kind of mystical sanity, precisely opposite of the nightmare. The person recalling their dream has an expression of wonder and excitement at the possibility of it all, and they are anxious to have that dream again. Has anyone ever said that about a nightmare?

Not long ago…although in today’s climate it feels like a lifetime…when talking about the issue of race in this country, instead of the nightmare of CRT, we talked about our dreams. There was one man, a black man, who articulated that dream, that vision of who we could be, one hot summer day.

Of course he was a Christian preacher, a man who follows the Son. The Christian places the Son at the center of his universe and reasons out from there. His faith provides him with the mystical imagination, as Chesterton put it, to accept the mystery of Christ at the center of things so that all else in the world becomes intelligible.

In our universe the sun blazes on in the heavens, often somewhat hazy and mysterious, but it alone provides both light and heat. Its counterpart, on the other hand, is the cold, lifeless moon, floating in the darkness of dead space: light without heat, and only reflected light at that. CRT is a product of the academy, home to the rationalists and their cold, lifeless theories. It’s no coincidence the moon’s Latin name forms the root of the word lunatic.

WHERE I STAND:

Leave a comment

CAPITAL PUNISHMENT

In 1976, legendary USC football coach John Mckay, who had led the team to four national championships during his tenure, left the program to become head coach of the NFL’s latest expansion team, the Tampa Bay Buccaneers. Mckay and his Bucs were winless in their first season and lost their next 12 games in the second season of their existence before finally winning a game. That adds up to 26 consecutive losses. Ouch. Mckay had developed a reputation with the media as having a quick wit and a keen sense of humor, which no doubt helped him survive those dark, early years with the Bucs. During one memorable postgame Q&A, Mckay was asked what he thought of his team’s execution. Mckay deadpanned, “I’m in favor of it.”

So I guess we know where John Mckay stood on this question.

For those of you who may be offended, or even slightly perturbed, that I decided to begin an essay about the very serious issue of capital punishment with a quip about subjecting a poorly performing football team to the ultimate punishment, I simply remind you that using dark, ironic humor in hopeless situations is known as gallows humor, so the anecdote could not be more apropos. Also, in case you were unaware, football is damn serious business.

Truth be told, I was going to begin this essay with some high falutin’ disposition on society, laws, the necessity for punishment and the need for those punishments to reflect society’s sense of justice, yadda, yadda, yadda. But I was boring myself, and no doubt would be boring the reader by now. Plus, I couldn’t resist the temptation to relate just about the funniest post game answer to a reporter’s question I think I’ve ever heard. So, shoot me. Or should I say, lethally inject me? (Oops, there I go again.)

HOW ABOUT SOME SMUG LIBERAL PIETY INSTEAD?

Okay, if you don’t appreciate my dark humor, and maybe you think this issue deserves more earnest treatment, here you go. Some readers may remember the TV show “The West Wing”. It portrayed the fictional presidency of Josiah Bartlett. The show’s creator and head writer, Aaron Sorkin, is well known to be a man of the political left. It was a very popular show and by all accounts well written and acted. And, if you watched it faithfully, you were bound to receive quite a “liberal” education. By that I mean you would be versed in all the arguments in favor of the left’s position on any given issue.

I recall catching a portion of one episode (I was not a faithful viewer) wherein Bartlett is being prepped for a debate. His staffer presents him with a hypothetical question about what he thinks should happen to a person who rapes and murders his wife. If you follow politics at all, you may remember that question being asked of Democratic presidential candidate Michael Dukakis during a 1988 debate with George H.W. Bush. Dukakis was a very prominent opponent of the death penalty, so it was a fair question. His answer, that he opposed the death penalty even in that case, struck voters as clinical and academic, and it turned off many to his candidacy. Sorkin may have had this moment in mind when he wrote the episode I am referencing, as it seems he was determined to provide Bartlett the answer he thought Dukakis should have given.

In the scene in question, Bartlett replies that of course he would want to see the man who brutally raped and murdered his wife given the most severe punishment imaginable. But, he adds, that’s why its a good idea that grieving husbands don’t have legal power to decide punishments. Its a typically clever retort, in that it at once makes Bartlett more human in his answer than Dukakis was, yet still identifies opposition to the death penalty as the “good” position. It also subtly implies that support for the death penalty is really just based on one’s irrational emotional impulses, and that smart people who are more evolved in their thinking would naturally understand that and decide the death penalty is an anachronism, a remnant of humanity’s pre-enlightenment, religious based ethical and moral thinking. Its a “Win-Win” answer as they say.

BUT WHAT ABOUT JUSTICE?

Except that it isn’t. As is the case with so much of modern thought, it is a clever answer but it lacks wisdom. What isn’t addressed in that answer is the question of justice, a topic pretty thoroughly analyzed by scores of pretty smart people (Aristotle and Aquinas come to mind), both secular and religious, who provided us with much knowledge and wisdom. Too bad we as a culture are so certain their ideas are out of style.

Of course the victim’s family should not have the legal authority to exact their preferred punishment on the offender. That’s called vigilantism. While it may be a natural, instinctual reaction, I agree with Sorkin that a morally healthy society must have the moral clarity to resist enabling or endorsing it. Where I differ with Sorkin and others who oppose capital punishment is that I believe a morally healthy society must also have the moral courage to clearly and unequivocally condemn very serious moral transgressions against society-such as heinous, depraved, and wanton acts of murder-by inflicting a punishment commensurate with the serious threat posed to the moral order by those kinds of crimes. I believe a proper conception of justice, one infused with the wisdom of many of those thinkers and theologians that moderns have so casually dismissed would go a long way towards reversing the recent trend in favor of abolishing the death penalty.

So, there. Is that serious enough for ya?

THROWING SAND IN THE BULL’S EYES

Now, most of the objections I hear people raise against capital punishment are the equivalent of the old debating trick of throwing sand in the bull’s eyes. What I mean is they don’t address the horns of the issue, i.e. the fundamental questions of justice and morality, but instead offer various objections designed to distract one from their ill conceived conception of justice. Let’s first clear away some of the sand so we can get to the horns of this issue.

For any death penalty supporter, the potential of executing an innocent person must be taken seriously. If one is talking about pre-modern societies, I am certain this injustice occurred. However, to my knowledge, opponents have yet to produce a single case in any post enlightenment liberal democracy wherein an innocent person was executed. This kind of mistake, in the context of our current system, which includes the rapidly developing science of DNA evidence, is so slight that I am comfortable supporting the death penalty while accepting the risk and responsibility of potentially having an innocent’s blood on my hands. Do opponents of capital punishment accept responsibility for the lives lost due to their support of abolishment? I am pretty certain I can dig up plenty of cases where a convicted murderer, who should have been executed, kills again, either in or out of prison. I am absolutely certain there are far more innocent victims of convicted murderers than there are innocent victims of capital punishment.

By the way, it always amazes me that opponents of the death penalty love to trot out those cases wherein DNA evidence overturned a conviction of a prisoner on death row, as if that makes their point. Doesn’t that just prove my point? Our system is so chock full of backstops in the form of appeals and stays and God knows what, that by 2018, the average time elapsed between a defendant being sentenced to death and the execution being carried out was 238 months! That’s almost 20 years, for those readers of mine who are as mathematically challenged as I. That is a morally corrupt system? I think not.

Another grain of sand thrown in this debate, and an amazing example of sheer chutzpah, is when opponents of capital punishment try to argue that maintaining death row inmates is more of a financial burden than their preferred punishment of life imprisonment. A debatable proposition at best, but one made possible only by the extreme guardrails erected by death penalty abolitionists that results in the convicted murderer spending nearly 20 years on death row!

Buckets of sand have been hurled, most especially in our current social climate, claiming the death penalty is unjust because it is unfairly applied in the case of poor and/or minority defendants. Opponents argue these defendants are more likely to receive the death penalty as punishment because of either unsuitable legal defense or systemic racism against minorities. As with any issue involving statistics, much depends on how the data is interpreted. On the one hand, a recent analysis in Georgia (poor Georgia! Sorry for piling on, Peach State!) indicated that the death sentence rate is 6% higher in white victim cases than in black victim cases. That means that if one murders a white person one is 6% more likely to be sentenced to death in Georgia. For those opposed to the death penalty, this serves as evidence of racial bias and therefore justification to call into question the justice of such a penalty. But does it? Despite the progressive insistence otherwise, in nearly everything from criminal justice to college graduation rates, the existence of disparity in outcomes along racial lines is not automatically dispositive evidence of bias. From 1977 through 2011, the racial breakdown for those convicted of crimes eligible for the death penalty was 48.6% white, 40.9% black, 8.9% Hispanic, 1.6% other. The race of those actually executed was 56% white, 35% black, 7% Hispanic, and 2% other. You’ll notice that when it came to carrying out the sentencing, the percent of black defendants who were actually executed is well below the percentage of white defendants receiving such a fate. Were those outcomes racially biased against whites?

My point is not to deny the real issues of race in the United States, but rather to remind the reader that these arguments simply don’t address whether or not capital punishment is just in and of itself. I am willing to concede that our criminal justice system is not perfect. No human system can possibly attain such an otherworldly status. I am more than willing, in fact eager, to debate and adopt potential reforms to our system to address inequalities, inefficiencies, and incompetence. What I am not willing to concede is that any of these problems obviate the need to have available a punishment proportionate to the severity of the crime. To those of offering this line of objection, I have a proposal: I will agree to a system in which any minority or poor person convicted in a capital crime shall have their case independently reviewed for any irregularities; gross misconduct on the part of the defense, prosecution or courts; or evidence of bias by any of the same. In return, you will agree to support the death penalty as a just and moral punishment for murders of a particularly heinous nature.

Some opponents of the death penalty like to throw scholarly sand by appealing to the Constitution, arguing that the death penalty violates the 8th Amendment’s prohibition against “cruel and unusual punishment”. Part of this argument rests upon their assertion that the penalty is unfairly applied (see above). Another part, the part I believe to be more revealing of their true objection to capital punishment, is the assertion that executions are barbaric and their continued use merely a relic of outdated mores and customs informed by less enlightened thinking. I do not doubt the Founders clearly viewed the death penalty as constitutional. It is the penalty proposed in cases of treason. Furthermore, it has been the misguided efforts of death penalty opponents to make the procedure more medical in nature, and thus supposedly more humane, that has led to lethal injections as the preferred means of execution. Yet, this method has proven to be rife with problems that often cause the kind of unnecessary pain and suffering to the person being executed upon which opponents partially base their objection to the practice in the first place. Mercy unchecked by an equally strong sense of moral outrage for the victims of these murderers leads to such morally confused thinking.

THE LITMUS TEST

Having dispensed with the clouds of sand and dust thrown at this issue, we finally arrive at the crux of it. The litmus test question in my mind is this:

Do you believe that all murderers should be allowed to live?

If your answer is NO, then you do not believe the death penalty should be abolished. You may have some concerns and qualms, as any moral person should, but you are at least in the same moral universe as I. You have not abandoned the centuries old Judeo-Christian moral and ethical framework that contains vast deposits of hard earned wisdom about such fundamental questions as justice and mercy. And as such we can at least discuss whatever reforms might be necessary to ensure capital punishment is applied only when justice demands. No more, no less.

If, however, I present you with a case like that which occurred in 2007 in Cheshire, Connecticut, wherein two men brutally beat, raped and murdered three people, and your response to the question posed above is YES, then you and I do not inhabit the same moral universe. There is nothing I can say that would make sense to you regarding this issue because your moral compass points to some other true north.

Sadly, more and more opponents of capital punishment, when pushed to admit their obscurant objections about the constitution or disparate impacts are smoke screens that do not hold up to scrutiny, have begun to more confidently assert their arguments against the death penalty in more direct moral terms. Believing they have discovered in their modern moral philosophies a superior sense of justice and morality, they dismissively cast supporters of the death penalty as at best pitiful clingers to old superstitions, and, at worst, blood thirsty souls bent on vengeance.

GUESS WHO SAW IT ALL COMING?

As I mentioned above, support for capital punishment has been trending downward recently. I believe the reason is quite clearly diagnosed by our old friend Gilbert:

The modern world is not evil; in some ways the modern world is far too good. It is full of wild and wasted virtues. When a religious scheme is shattered…it is not merely the vices that are let loose. The vices are, indeed, let loose, and they wander and do damage. But the virtues are let loose also; and the virtues wander more wildly, and the virtues do more terrible damage. The modern world is full of the old Christian virtues gone mad. The virtues have gone mad because they have been isolated from each other and are wandering alone. Thus some scientists care for truth; and their truth is pitiless. Thus some humanitarians only care for pity; and their pity (I am sorry to say) is often untruthful.

G.K. Chesterton

Only someone inhabiting the fractured, inverted moral universe described here by Chesterton could possibly believe that justice is served by allowing all murderers to live.

A DEAL WITH THE DEVIL

1 Comment

Justin Thomas, the talented young professional golfer, got himself into trouble out in Hawaii earlier this month. Although he might think he has taken the necessary steps to ameliorate the situation, I fear he may have just made a deal with the devil.

Thomas’ woes began on January 9th of this year during a tournament in which he was competing. Despite Thomas apologizing for his transgression after both the third and fourth rounds of the tournament and responding to reporters questions regarding the incident, one of his sponsors, the clothing company Ralph Lauren, announced within a week they had “discontinued their sponsorship of Mr. Thomas at this time.” The statement went on to say the company hopes “Mr. Thomas does the hard and necessary work in order to partner with us again – truly examining this incident, learning, growing and ultimately using his platform to promote inclusion.”

Apparently Mr. Thomas got the message. On January 25th, investment bank Citi announced that it had reached an agreement with Thomas in which they will maintain their sponsorship of him while “requiring him to donate a ‘meaningful portion’ of his deal as part of an active role in (these) causes.” Carla Hassan, speaking on behalf Citi, noted that while many of her colleagues felt termination was the only appropriate action to take considering the circumstances, Citi instead decided it was better to work with Thomas: “We considered terminating our relationship with him. It would send a clear and important message, but we decided to use this moment to work with Justin to try to create change.”

STICKS AND STONES…

What did Thomas do to elicit such a tidal wave of opprobrium? Did he assault another player or caddie during the match? Did he throw a club in frustration and hit a bystander? Did he beat his wife or girlfriend? Did he berate a rules official or spectator, hurling vicious slurs or epithets at them? No, No, No, and No.

Here is what Thomas did: After missing a short putt, Thomas berated…himself; he muttered to himself an admittedly ugly word, calling himself a “faggott”. A television microphone near the green picked up audio of Thomas’ self flagellation, and the public flagellation began.

I’m sure Thomas wishes he had used another “F” word instead. If he had, we’d have never known about it, and rightly so. It would not have created a ripple, never mind a tsunami. If you’ve ever played any golf, surely you can sympathize with the maddening frustrations it can induce. As Thomas’ outburst demonstrates, the most talented practitioners of the game are not immune from the game’s tortures. Sometimes in the heat of competition, they say bad things. Nearly always they are directing that salty verbiage at themselves or their long suffering caddie.

As already noted, Thomas, once he realized the comment had been captured for posterity, did not hide or ignore it. He apologized, twice, and answered any and all questions about it. He said a nasty word, no doubt, and then he expressed his sincere regret for using such language, even though it was in a moment he thought was private. And that should have been enough.

DANCING FOR DOLLARS

Unfortunately for Thomas, and for anyone in the public eye, the advent of around the clock, full spectrum media coverage, has coincided with the cultural dominance of a Progressive clerisy, whose lack of tolerance for any public transgression of its woke orthodoxy would make the Puritans blush. No doubt once we have the technology perfected, they will add private transgressions to the list. Look out Joe Six Pack. Impure thoughts shall not be tolerated.

Citi tipped their hand to this current reality in their statement, from which I quoted earlier. The statement appeared in a company blog post entitled, “When an apology is not enough.” Indeed.

I do not object to either Ralph Lauren Co. or Citi deciding to drop Thomas as a paid spokesman. They are both private companies. They have the absolute right to decide whom they will employ. They also have the right to dictate the conditions under which their employees must labor, up to and including requirements to publicly (at least for now…the private part may be coming) support whatever causes they deem worthy.

What concerns me is why Thomas decided to voluntarily accept those conditions. He is a very talented golfer who earns substantial sums from his performance alone. He is a paid sponsor for several other companies, who as of this writing, still employ his services. He could, unlike many of us, easily walk away. Instead, Thomas has agreed to become Citi’s organ grinder monkey.

JUST(IN) SAY NO

Maybe Thomas truly believes it is necessary for him to “examine this incident” and “learn and grow”. Maybe he feels he needs to protect his public image. Maybe he doesn’t want to forego the money. Maybe…probably…the truth is that some or all of these concerns are driving his decision.

However, I would advise Mr. Thomas to review Citi’s press release very carefully. Near the end it reads, “If at any point we feel Justin is not sincere in working toward this goal, we will end our relationship with him.” If he did not feel a chill go through him, like I did when I read that, then maybe he needs to look up the phrase “Faustian bargain”.

Either way, if I were Thomas, I would be saying thanks, but no thanks, Citi. I’m not ceding, to you or anyone else, the power to pass judgment on my depth of sincerity, my true motives, or my decency and basic human worth, based solely on how strictly I adhere to your preferred political or social orthodoxies.

I hope, whatever Citi is paying him, it is enough to support him and his family going forward. I think he may find it hard to earn much more money on the golf course. Success in the game of golf is notoriously fickle, and it takes incredible talent and drive to sustain a consistently high level of play. Its even harder when you have so many strings attached to you they start calling you “Pinocchio”.

THE DOWNLOAD

Leave a comment

DECEMBER 2020

A VOTE OF NO CONFIDENCE

Since the turn of this century, the United States has conducted six presidential elections. With the exception of 2012, when Mitt Romney gave an election night concession speech, conducting himself with a statesmanship that now seems anachronistic, there has not been a single contest that did not feature at least some accusation of fraud, and ultimately intimations of illegitimacy, hurled at the incoming chief executive, senators, or representatives, by his or her political opponents. This year, unsurprisingly, has lowered the bar so far that Verne Troyer wouldn’t be able to limbo under it. What is going on here?

I perused election related legislation of the past fifty odd years while thinking about this topic (you’re welcome…someone had to do it). Since 1965, when Congress passed the Voting Rights Act, finally eradicating the last vestiges of the Jim Crow system in the South, wherein blacks were systematically denied a fair opportunity to exercise their right to vote among other indignities, the focus has turned to “expanding access to the ballot box” and “reducing the influence of big money in politics”, to borrow language from a pending bill in Congress, H.R. 1, introduced in 2019 (named the “For the People Act”). Before this “landmark” legislation, there was the National Voter Registration Act (passed 1993, aka the “Motor Voter” Act), the Help America Vote Act (2002) and the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform bill (2002). Looking at these bills reveals a constant and disturbing theme. Democrats are obsessed with the myth of ongoing and pervasive voter suppression. They see George Wallace and Bull Connor lurking behind even the most modest regulations or restrictions. Republicans, more so since the emergence of the Trumpists, are obsessed with the myth of widespread election fraud. They are haunted by the spectres of Boss Tweed and Mayor Richard Daley, blaming every defeat at the ballot box on some vast conspiracy perpetrated by some big city Democratic machine…or, most recently, Hugo Chavez and corrupted Dominion voting machines.

SPEAKING OF BANANA REPUBLICS…

If things go on like this, we are going to make Venezuela look like a model democratic society. Things have gotten out of hand. Both sides need to drop the overheated rhetoric. Every expansion of access or voting innovation is NOT some kind of conspiracy to commit fraud. Likewise, reasonable measures to combat fraud and insure electoral integrity do NOT impose some kind of undue burden on the voter.

I have no intention of attempting in this post to submit a comprehensive election reform statute. As I said, I read through some of those bills. Whew! What a mess. It’s clear to me now why most of our elected representatives went to law school. Only a trained lawyer could compose that kind of…what shall I say? Oh, President Elect Biden, what do you think? MALARKEY! Yes, that’s it.

Anyway, the Constitution (remember that thing?) directs that each state legislature is tasked with establishing the means and methods by which elections are to be conducted in their respective states, with some general Federal oversight (such as the 1965 Voting Rights Act) to ensure Constitutional compliance. Herewith, for the benefit of any state legislator who may be interested, some foundational principles to consider.

VOTING IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN A DRIVERS LICENSE, RIGHT?

Just spitballing here, but it seems to me the default position, when it comes to both registering to vote and the act of voting, should be to insist the prospective voter do that in person. We require citizens who wish to be licensed to drive to show up in person, provide proof of their identity, and even take a test. Is voting a less significant activity than driving? Is it too much to ask of our citizens to make the effort to show up in person to ensure the integrity of one of the cornerstones of our democratic system? I don’t think so. In fact, the process of registering to vote should be modeled on the process involved in getting your driver’s license. In order to be a properly registered voter, one must go in person to the local DMV with an identification to prove both your age and citizenship. If you are only 18 you will have to pass a written test on civics. Then you will be issued your voter registration card. Just like your driver’s license, it will expire at some point and you will be able to renew it online or by mail without needing to take the test again. If you move, all voter registrations will be honored by all other states. If you would like to vote in your new state with your old registration, simply fill out a postcard to notify your new state of your local address and voter registration number in order to be entered into that state’s database. Once the original registration expires, one must re-register in person in their new state, just like when your old driver’s license expires and you are living in a new state. I can already hear the anguished cries of ACLU junior staffers ringing in my ears. Okay, I’m a reasonable guy. You don’t want to take the test? You think that is an unfair burden? Fine. Then you have to wait until you are 21 to vote. That’s called a compromise.

What about actually voting? Again, basic principles apply. The default position is that there is a designated election day and if you want to vote you show up on that day in person and vote. No early voting. No online voting. No giving your ballot to some representative for the state to deliver for you (this is known as ballot harvesting and is ripe with fraud). Again, I am a reasonable guy. I propose states implement a four day voting window. From the previous Saturday through the actual election Tuesday, all registered voters can vote in person at any time during that window. Now, before everyone goes ballistic on me, I am simply saying this is the default norm. Of course there will special circumstances. If a properly registered voter (see above) desires to vote but cannot show up in person during that 96 hour window, they will have to request permission, either by a simple postcard or online, to receive an absentee ballot (for out of state voters or military) or a mail in ballot (for those who are physically unable to get to the polls). Their vote must be postmarked by election day in order to count. I am not about to decree the ballot must arrive by election day and make someone’s vote dependent on the efficiency of the U.S. Post Office. What kind of kook do you think I am? (Don’t answer that.)

A REPUBLIC, IF YOU CAN KEEP IT…

Despite the generally lighthearted nature of this post, I take voting very seriously. I think it deserves to be rescued from the partisanship that has so skewed our thinking about this issue. I’ll close by reminding us all that voting is the right of every citizen. However, let us not forget that along with that right are concomitant responsibilities that we need to take seriously again if we want to keep the Republic bequeathed to us by the Founders.

A LITTLE NIGHT LANGUAGE

Tonights word: ENSORCELLED. It means to be enchanted by or fascinated by; to fall under the spell of someone or something.

What a great word. Well, until next time…

THE DOWNLOAD

2 Comments

MUSINGS ON THE CURRENT SCENE: NOVEMBER 2020

Well, that was fun wasn’t it? The 2020 election is finally over…yes, diehard Trumpers, it’s over. And its the type of antics Trump is engaging in now that are the reason. Trump lost because he was too lazy to just show the least bit of discipline in his campaign. Trump is about Trump, always, which makes it remarkable he was able to convince people he was “fighting” for them.

Now I can go back to fighting for myself instead of hearing how some politician is going to fight for me. I follow the Carolla Rule, first enunciated by Adam Carolla: I never vote for any politician who tells me they are fighting for me. Thanks, but no thanks. I’ll stick up for myself. Please, Mr. or Miss Politician, stop fighting for me and focus on doing your job, which involves something more like ensuring the garbage is picked up.

So, how much do you think we’ll be hearing about how terrible the Electoral College is over the next few years? Not much I suspect, since Mr. Biden won there. Funny, when I hear progressives gripe about it, I always hear how it’s not fair that sparsely populated Montana or Idaho gets the same representation in the Senate as California or New York. I never hear how its unfair that tiny states like Vermont or Rhode Island or Delaware get two Senators also.

Its not just progressives who have this annoying habit. How long will it take Republicans to start griping about the federal debt and overall spending now that Democrats have the presidency? They somehow forgot about those things when their guy was in there. There’s an old political joke that says you only hear about the homeless when a Republican is on office. Kind of makes you wonder how serious these politicians (who are fighting for you, remember) are about tackling real issues, or are the issues just talking points in service of their gaining or keeping power. The question kind of answers itself…

Speaking of Trump and Trumpism, you probably guessed I am not a fan of Trump. Not my cup of tea, as they say. He just reminds me of the blowhard at the end of the bar who is always spouting off about something he doesn’t really know that much about, but he says it in such a colorful and sometimes humorous way, that people just smile and let him do his schtick. Some people, heck, many people obviously, loved it. The common theme to me with his supporters was that Trump annoyed the people that annoyed them. It was more about who his enemies were, not him really. I mean, who would guess that a rich kid from Queens, who inherited his money, would be the hero of the working class? Only in America.

But what of Trumpism, if there is such a thing? Many Republicans are no doubt scrambling this very minute to figure out how to tap into that phenomenon. I think they will fail miserably (and, more importantly to me, further damage the viability of conservative ideas) if they try to adopt his style, which I think when you boil it down, is all there is to Trumpism: Style. You love him because he annoys your opponents so much. He’s the classic player you love when he’s on your team and hate when he’s on the other, which add up to…he’s just annoying, period. He had no political philosophy to speak of. He had some instincts I agreed with. With the help of those dastardly establishment types like Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell, his administration achieved some very conventional republican goals: cut taxes, push back on regulatory overreach (particularly in the Department of Education), appoint judges who will do their job, not the job of a legislator, etc.

I will give Trump credit for this: By so thoroughly getting under progressives collective skin, he brought out the worst of them and their most extreme ideas, allowing the average citizen to peek behind the facade if you will. I guess he was like Toto, pulling back the curtain in the Wizard of Oz. I think that is the big takeaway from the election results. Americans agreed with the Democrats primary argument, i.e. it was time for Trump to go. Joe Biden is President (wow…is he the luckiest career politician or what!) because he fulfilled the biggest requirement of the American people: to not be Donald Trump. But any fever dreams of progressives that this election was going to be some big blue wave and affirm a transformation of American politics along progressive lines were definitively dashed. Americans saw riots and heard them described as “mostly peaceful”, listened to progressives talk of Green New Deals, and packing the courts, and adding states, and said no thanks. Mitch McConnell, hated by progressives and Trumpers alike, is the most powerful man in Washington now.

I think, if you are of a conservative sensibility like myself, you may look back on this election as the turning point toward better days. Trump, the bull in the china shop, has done his job. There is no more china to smash, if you will, and it is time to go. One needn’t worry about Biden…he is a placeholder. He will be pushed by his left to implement their progressive wish list, but he will not be able to as long as the Republicans control the Senate. A potential President Harris will run into the same problem. The Republican party, which beyond anyone’s expectations, actually picked up House seats, many of whom are women and minorities, and may have a good chance of taking the House in 2022. Maybe by 2024, some Republicans will figure out how to speak the language of conservatism to more people, be able to move that Overton window back toward the right a bit. But if they take the easy way and just try to be mini-Trumps, it will be a disaster. Playing the politics of demonization doesn’t work for left or right for very long.

My goals politically are not for the Republicans to win per se. It is to try to convince as many people as possible to look at things from a more conservative viewpoint. If you’re always arguing about things with a progressive set of assumptions, its really hard to sell conservative solutions. Hell, its hard to sell conservative solutions anyway. They tend to be for grown-ups. We seem to have less and less of those in either party, and the electorate as a whole, these days.

Which reminds me…can we put to rest these calls…mostly from the progressives I must say…to lower the voting age? If anything it should be raised. My son had a homework assignment a few weeks ago in which he was asked to answer the question, “Should 11 year- old kids be allowed to vote?” I should have had him answer, “Only if they are allowed to smoke and drink.” But I didn’t want him kicked out of school. I think the voting age should probably reflect the average age of adult responsibility in a society. I could sign off on the 11 year old vote 300 years ago. Heck, those kids were getting up at 5 am to milk the cows. Then they spent most of their day in some kind of hard labor. They were a lot more adult than most 25 year-olds today. Today, unless one gets married and has children, i.e. is forced (presumably) to think about someone else’s needs, we have delayed adulthood on average into one’s 30’s. I mean, under Obamacare, people can ride their parents healthcare until age 26. Under that standard, maybe the voting age should be 27.

So, what will the Republican and Democratic parties look like in 2024? Things seem to be shifting. In my lifetime, Republicans were always characterized as the party of the rich and big business…the monocle guy from Monopoly. Democrats were portrayed as the party of the working class, unions, and minorities…Joe six pack. Doesn’t that seem like it is flipping around, or at least changing somewhat? Even the minority vote, which among blacks is still overwhelmingly Democratic, is starting to not be so monolithic. There is a lot of egghead talk going on about how the Republican party post-Trump is now a multi ethnic, workers party. I’m not so sure. As I said, conservatism works best with an adult electorate. We are a juvenile society. But maybe we’re ready to move beyond the temper tantrums of the last few years and grow up. If so, then maybe a conservative message has a chance. I won’t be holding my breath.

A LITTLE LANGUAGE

To end with a little mental enrichment is always a good thing. I love this word: Animadversion. It means criticism or censure. A comment or remark that is censorious. The word just tickles my senses for some reason. Anyway, thought you’d enjoy learning it too. Until next time…

MORE DISCRIMINATION, PLEASE

Leave a comment

Breonna Taylor, the young black woman shot to death in her apartment by Louisville police officers in March of this year, was not the victim of racist police officers or systemic discrimination by the criminal justice system.

Sadly, the mischaracterization of the circumstances of her death, either due to simple ignorance, or more perniciously, as a result of the appropriation of Miss Taylor’s story in service of a certain political narrative, squanders an opportunity for genuine improvement in our society.

THE FACTS OF THE CASE

Courtesy of the New York Times reporting of Rukmini Callimachi, here is a basic summary of the case:

1. The police obtained a no-knock warrant to raid Taylor’s apartment based on allegations that a suspected drug dealer named Jamarcus Glover had received packages at Taylor’s home (Glover and Taylor had a previous relationship). The police sought the no-knock warrant out of a desire to preserve evidence.

2. Before the warrant was served, the police were directed to knock and announce rather than execute the warrant without knocking. At approximately 12:40 a.m. on March 13, the police pounded on Taylor’s door. Taylor was inside with her boyfriend, Kenneth Walker. He lawfully possessed a handgun.

3. At this point the facts are in dispute. Police claim that they knocked and announced they were police. A witness corroborates this account, but other witnesses dispute it, claiming they never heard the cops identify themselves. Walker claims that he was startled by the pounding, asked who was there, never heard a response, and was worried that it might be Glover. So he grabbed his gun.

4. The police then broke down the door to enter the apartment. Walker and Taylor saw them in the darkness, and Walker fired a single shot, striking one officer in the leg, severing his femoral artery and gravely injuring him. Under the available evidence (Walker hadn’t heard the police identify themselves and unknown individuals were violently entering his home), Walker had a legal right to shoot at the intruders, even if they were police. 

5. At the same time, the instant the officers saw that Walker was pointing his gun at them—and certainly when he pulled the trigger—they had their own legal right to shoot back. They were performing their official duties, and an armed man was quite plainly placing them in immediate, mortal danger.

6. They did not, however, have the right to use indiscriminate force. Two officers fired directly at Walker. They hit Taylor, who was standing nearby. But given the proximity of Taylor to Walker, it would be virtually impossible to prove that the officers’ startled response—aimed directly at the perceived threat—was reckless enough to be criminal.

LACK OF PROPER DISCRIMINATION

After looking at the available evidence, the fact is Miss Taylor was the victim of not enough discrimination…on the part police officers, judges, and legislators who were complicit in creating the conflicts of interest that led to her tragic death at the age of 26.

In its original sense, discrimination meant discernment-using one’s reason and judgment to distinguish between competing priorities to arrive at a reasonable conclusion. Only in the last century or so has it taken on the meaning we commonly associate with it today: the prejudicial treatment of others based on categories of race, class, gender, etc. It was the failure of judgment and reason-not blind or callous prejudice-that ultimately led to Miss Taylor’s death.

I understand the desire to maintain the element of surprise. In general, law enforcement does not want to give the subject the opportunity to either escape, destroy incriminating evidence, or prepare an armed defense or barricade. However, it is incumbent upon the police, for their own safety as much as for the safety of the public, to plan each arrest or search warrant according to the best information available for that specific situation.

Simply conducting business as usual, just because that is the way ‘we have always done it’, is not good enough. Hard questions need to be asked each time law enforcement is contemplating using its awesome powers. Did anyone involved seriously consider the following questions:

  1. Was the evidence possibly present at Taylor’s apartment significant enough to justify the risks inherent in executing a “no-knock” warrant at 12:40 a.m.?
  2. Was the potential recovery of evidence in that manner and in this context reasonable in light of the Fourth Amendment’s prohibitions against unreasonable search and seizure?

In the case of the tragic events that unfolded last March in Louisville, I recognize it is easy to ‘Monday morning quarterback’ the entire episode. It is clear now, to me at least, that the answers to the two questions posed above are an emphatic “NO”. However, it does no good to be right after the fact. In this case, the answers to those questions should have been “NO” prior to the operation. Why weren’t they?

BALANCING COMPETING INTERESTS

David French, at The Dispatch, argues that Miss Taylor’s death was the tragic result of the confused and contradictory jurisprudence surrounding the legitimate interests of the government in enforcing the law and the competing right of the individual to be secure in his home. As a law enforcement professional for nearly twenty years, I believe French is correct. Something bad was bound to happen. It was only a matter of time.

The police and the courts got it wrong here, and it cost Miss Taylor her life. That is the simple fact. They were wrong not because they were discriminating against a particular group of people. They were wrong because they failed to be discriminating enough about their responsibilities to the public. The question now is, “How do we make sure they do better in the future?”

A REPUBLIC, IF YOU CAN KEEP IT

Upon leaving the Constitutional Convention in 1787, Benjamin Franklin was reportedly asked by someone outside what the convention had produced. He famously replied, “A republic, if you can keep it.” Franklin’s response intimates an inescapable truth of our system. We need to do the hard work of maintaining it. In the case of Breonna Taylor, we need to demand our elected officials look critically at the inherent tensions created by recent jurisprudence in the areas of search and seizure. We need to elect representatives who will reform the law, where necessary, so that we clarify the proper constitutional balance between individual liberty and the rule of law.

What we do not need is simplistic sloganeering and irresponsible rhetoric. Yes, being responsible citizens, just like being a responsible adult, is hard..much harder than making a sign and yelling through a bullhorn. If we really want to honor the memory of Breonna Taylor, we need to accept the responsibilities of citizenship and commit to the hard work of building a better republic. We owe it to her and to ourselves.

Midweek Miscellany

Leave a comment

Oh My! as sportscaster Dick Enberg liked to say. So much going on, but here are just a few quick thoughts on the passing scene…

SUPREME TEMPER TANTRUM

The death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg last weekend has added another piece of kindling to an already robust political bonfire. That this is so is the result of the Court’s unfortunate transformation over the last fifty years into a kind of supra-legislature. Both in the minds of most of the public, and sadly, in the minds of many of those who should know better, including some of the Justices themselves, the Supreme Court has come to be understood as a black-robed oligarchy, tasked with enlightening the less enlightened as to the laws they should be living under.

If one accepts this flawed conceptual framework, then the nomination process for Supreme Court justices necessarily morphs into the circus we have been witnessing since at least the failed nomination of Robert Bork in 1987. If the Court is to act as a quasi-legislature, as a vehicle to enact political ends that have been thus far frustrated at the ballot box, then it is no surprise that persons invested in that view become so agitated whenever a vacancy arises. They fear their legislative policy goals will be thwarted, unjustly, by the appointment of justices who don’t share their political preferences.

Unfortunately, Justice Ginsburg, as Kevin D. Williamson notes, didn’t understand her job. Nor do the multitudes wailing and screaming about how unfair it is that the vacancy on the Court may be filled before “the people” have a chance to decide the issue in November. This is, as Joe Biden might say in another context, pure malarkey. Sadly, we have strayed so far from our Constitutional moorings that supposedly serious people are lending credence to the notion that the only proper thing to do in this situation is let the voters decide this coming November. Or, even more preposterously, that because it was Justice Ginsburg’s dying wish, that we allow the issue to be decided after the election (see here).

Sorry, but this is very simple. In our constitutional system, the President is empowered to nominate persons to fill vacancies on the Federal bench, including the Supreme Court. The Senate is empowered to either accept the nomination, reject the nomination, or simply ignore it. End of story.

I find it quite hilarious that the same people most ardently attached to the undemocratic and unconstitutional idea of rule by judicial fiat are the same people claiming this current situation is unfair and also undemocratic. It is not. The last time the people were given a choice, they chose this President and this Senate. In fact, many observers believe Donald Trump’s pledge to appoint justices who would uphold the Constitution’s original intent was a key factor in his victory. Now, some will protest that Donald Trump lost the popular vote and therefore he was illegitimately elected. But they betray their underlying anti-constitutionalism with this complaint because they are ignoring the fact that the gross total number of votes for President is…take a deep breath…irrelevant in our system. Their proposed solutions to the current situation..abolish the Electoral college, abolish the filibuster, pack the Court …are even more revealing of their profound antipathy toward the founding vision for this republic. At least these kind of controversies allow us to see through the veil of their publicly professed allegiance to the constitution, revealing more clearly the anti-constitutional project they are pursuing.

THE PRESIDENT WHO CRIED WOLF

Someone in the Department of Education (DOE), no doubt with a keen sense of humor, decided to take Princeton President Christopher Eisgruber at his word. The DOE launched an investigation of Princeton University for civil rights violations based on statements recently made by…Eisgruber. In the midst of this country’s “Great Awokening”, Eisgruber, eager to proclaim the complicity of his own institution in the rampant institutional racism decried by groups such as Black Lives Matter and their supporters, said:

Racism and the damage it does to people of color nevertheless persist at Princeton as in our society, sometimes by conscious intention but more often through unexamined assumptions and stereotypes, ignorance or insensitivity, and the systemic legacy of past decisions and policies.  Race-based inequities in America’s health care, policing, education, and employment systems affect profoundly the lives of our staff, students, and faculty of color. Racist assumptions from the past also remain embedded in structures of the University itself.  For example, Princeton inherits from earlier generations at least nine departments and programs organized around European languages and culture, but only a single, relatively small program in African studies.Racist assumptions from the past also remain embedded in structures of the University itself. 

Christopher L. Eisgruber (Excerpted from a letter to the Princeton Community, 9/2/ 2020) (Italics added)

Of course, upon reading the entirety of the letter, it is clear Eisgruber was simply intending to make sure the country was keenly aware of how “on board” Princeton is with the current cultural diktats. He, much like store owners in Minneapolis and Portland, was anxious to post in bold letters on the store front: Black Lives Matter. No doubt he hoped this prophylactic measure would ensure he and his Institution would be spared the ill-informed, know-nothing rage of the mob. Ironically, in his eagerness to step into a leading role in the current Kabuki theater of racial discourse, he instead stepped into his own woke pile of dung.

AUTUMN BLISS

I will end with a note of gratitude. As Chesterton noted:

When it comes to life the critical thing is whether you take things for granted or take them with gratitude.

G. K. Chesterton

I am grateful for the Fall season and the heavenly weather it brings, particularly to the Northeast region of our beautiful country. How can there be a more glorious gift of the Almighty than the invigorating, intoxicating pleasure of the perfect Autumn day? The bright, radiant sun, warming without being wearisome; the calm, crisp air, inviting deep inhalations of its freshness and vitality; the rich, bold tapestry of colors, evoking a Mother Nature fashioned tie-dyed tee shirt . It is an absolute wonder to be alive on days such as these, and everyone needs to make sure he experiences as many of them as possible.

The Wolf You Feed

Leave a comment

The death of George Floyd at the hands of Officer Derek Chauvin in May in Minneapolis rightfully sparked widespread protests. It was an egregious abuse of power. Floyd’s death also reignited a quite heated discussion of the treatment of African Americans by law enforcement in the United States. Among the many articles, op-eds, essays, and tweets decrying police brutality, systemic racism, and white privilege, I also noted several mentions of “The Talk”.

Here is the Wikipedia definition of “The Talk”:

The talk is a colloquial expression for a conversation some Black parents in the United States feel compelled to have with their children and teenagers about the dangers they face due to racism or unjust treatment from authority figures, law enforcement or other parties, and how to de-escalate them. The practice dates back generations and is often a rite of passage for Black children.

In trying to understand this phenomenon more clearly, I came across the following essay: https://slate.com/human-interest/2020/06/white-parents-the-talk-racism-police-brutality.html

Please click on the above link and read the essay carefully.

I’ll wait…

Assuming you’ve done your assigned reading, I’d like share with you a few thoughts and questions that came to my mind.

The author tells us that after giving her version of “The Talk” to her seven year old in the wake of Floyd’s death, the child was brought to tears and he was terrified. She says he asked a lot of tough questions about hate and racism, and he ended by asking to leave the United States.

Well…okay then. Good talk.

If this is what results from “The Talk”, how is this in any way helpful? Instilling such fear in a child seems a bit counterproductive to me. As the Jedi Master Yoda told Luke Skywalker, “Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.” Now, I’m not generally disposed to taking my philosophical bearings from little, green, and yes, fictional creatures (sorry Star Wars true believers!), but old Yoda makes more sense to me than terrifying your child in the name of…what? Authenticity? Keeping it real?

There’s a big, and crucial, difference between creating awareness and creating an attitude. Its like the difference between giving a hitter a scouting report about a pitcher’s tendency to throw inside versus telling him the pitcher is looking to throw at your head. Who is more likely to get a hit? Who is more likely to charge the mound after one inside pitch?

Now, I’m no Pollyanna. I am not for one minute dismissing the reality of the Black experience in the United States. And it is not my purpose here to debate the complicated history of that reality. Frankly, I’m not qualified. But more pertinently, I don’t believe it would do much good. There is a time and place for discussions about the proverbial number of angels on the head of a pin. Preparing your child to succeed in an often dangerous world is not one of them. It reminds me of the scene in Apollo 13 where one of the engineers is frantically trying to convince Gene Kranz, the Flight Director, that he needs to inform the crew that their flight path is not quite optimal. The engineer has calculated, quite correctly no doubt, all the dire outcomes the crew might face based on their current situation. He feels compelled to share his expert knowledge with the crew as they are beginning their crucial entry into the atmosphere of Earth. Kranz, however, has a different focus. He interrupts the engineer in the midst of his “talk”, and asks him one simple question: “Is there anything they can do about it?” The engineer is forced to admit that at this point there is not. “Then they don’t need to know,” says Kranz. Kranz isn’t advocating ignorance or willful blindness. He is simply reminding the engineer that right then and there his mission is to help the crew get safely back. It doesn’t serve that mission to provide them with information not germane to that mission. All other concerns are secondary. There’s plenty of time for that in the post flight debrief. But first let’s get to the debrief. When I heard about “The Talk”, I assumed its focus was the same as Kranz’: Get them home safe. Maybe I assumed too much.

Now, I don’t know precisely what Miss McDonald said to her son. Maybe he is a particularly sensitive child. But the results of her talk are telling. In a few years, her son seems primed to forgo his fearful tears and charge the mound. Fear leads to hate, hate leads to anger…

Miss McDonald does, however, provide us some clues. After claiming that she would never presume to tell another parent what to say to their own child, she graciously provides some helpful hints. I found this bit illuminating:

Avoid using the word “tolerance,” and don’t try to teach your kids to be “color blind”—that’s not a real thing. Identity isn’t something to be put up with or ignored; it’s to be respected and celebrated. And it’s not enough to simply insist that they “acknowledge” their privilege. That privilege must be actively wielded as a shield for Black lives.

Autumn McDonald

I also found it deeply dispiriting. To think this is the sort of “Talk” young Black children are receiving from their parents is unnerving enough. But Miss McDonald goes further. In her desire for what she calls “allyship” from white parents, she urges them to have the same kind of “Talk”, with the same ideas expressed in the above quoted passage, with their children. Heaven forfend!

A perfectly tolerant and color blind society is not a real thing. I agree. As long as there human beings this will be true. It is, however, a noble aspiration worthy of societal striving. But Miss McDonald does not dismiss tolerance and color blindness because they are difficult, or even, truth be told, out of our worldly reach. She dismisses them because they are out of sync with her worldview. To her, color is identity. According to her, our most important concept of self begins and ends with our color. It is a view she shares, unfortunately, with many others today.

Sorry, Miss McDonald, I will not be your ally. I will not tell any child his skin pigment is the most important thing about him and everyone else in the world. I will not set him on the path to fear, anger, and hate, because it will lead to only sorrow, for him and the world.

I will tell him there are two kinds of people only: the decent and the indecent. I will tell him he is called upon by his Creator to treat every person as an individual. It will be difficult. He will be tempted, by his own inherent sinfulness, and by the indecent influence of others, to give into his fear of the other, the superficially different. But I will tell him he must not give into that temptation. He must not listen to anyone who tells him he should base his treatment of other people on such trivialities as skin color, ethnicity, religious belief, sex, or sexual orientation. I will tell him these things again and again. I will tell him the world is a difficult, often unjust, and sometimes dangerous place. And I will tell him this story:

One evening an old man told his grandson about a battle that goes on inside every man.

He said, “My son, the battle is between two “wolves” inside us all.

One is Evil. It is anger, envy, jealousy, sorrow, regret, greed, arrogance, self-pity, guilt, resentment, inferiority, lies, false pride, superiority, and ego.

The other is good. It is joy, peace, love, hope, serenity, humility, kindness, benevolence, empathy, generosity, truth, compassion and faith.”

The grandson thought about it for a minute and then asked his grandfather: “Which wolf wins?”

The old man simply replied, “The one you feed.”